Talk:Jimmy Savile/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Crown Prosecution Service

>In October 2009 the Crown Prosecution Service advised there was insufficient evidence to take any further action and no charges were brought.

Would it help if somone who knows how to edit and provide sources mentioned who was the "reviewing lawyer for the CPS" making the decision and who was the Director of Public Prosecutions responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service at the time? Or is the lawyer unknown and the papers about this are lost? Htrowsle (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The identities of individual officers are not usually in the public domain, for obvious reasons. But Mr Johnson kindly reminded us, only yesterday, that the DPP at the time was Sir Keir Starmer? Johnson appeared to be suggesting that Starmer was in some way personally responsible for this decision and was subsequently criticised by the Speaker of the House Lindsay Hoyle. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

According to this BBC source, "In three cases investigated by Surrey Police, no prosecutions were brought on the basis that none of the victims was prepared to give evidence in court." So it wasn't really anything to do with Starmer.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There are a few mentions of the CPS in this article, but no mention of Starmer specifically, as head of the CPS at the time of the CPS investigations. In view of the political deadcatting going on in relation to Starmer's alleged involvement, should he be named in this article, even though he would probably not have been personally involved? He is mentioned a few times in the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article - but should his name be included here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess we should not allow Johnson's political buffoonery to dictate article content, especially here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC) e.g. "who ate all the Scottish pork pies?" etc.

Looks like only a peripheral reference so no, not really. Unless it lasts past recentism for some reason, but too early to tell. Britmax (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The mentions at Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal seem more appropriate and the most pertinent details are already in this article. No need to change anything at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does it list he is still a Sir????

Remove Sir from his name? 24.87.132.220 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times in the talk page archive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Have I Got News For You

Season 5, Episode 2 (23 April 1993) Jimmy Savile is called a grotesque figure which terrorises children.(188.79.46.114 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC))

That one where Chris Evans looks about 14? Have you got the time code for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

Please note: Savile's place of death should read Leeds, not Roundhay. His apartment was in the Leeds 8 postal code of Leeds in Roundhay Park, in the northern area of Leeds. I was born there, in Leeds and I too lived in Leeds 8, and Leeds 17 regions. We may not want to remember this man being from Leeds, but Roundhay Park also, I believe, would not wish to be associated with this despicable 'con artist'. Thanks for your kind consideration in this matter. 142.114.103.75 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done To be consistent with the info box, I have added Leeds to the text. The fact that he died in Roundhay, Leeds is just an inescapable fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Savile's penthouse flat overlooked Roundhay Park, this was where he died and was his primary home for the last few years of his life; he bought it in the 1970s.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

If there's a source, could be added somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

First sentence

Should read Jimmy Saville was a peadophile who during his lifetime abused his position as……. 95.146.249.91 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to the huge discussion above, headed "Lead paragraph", and contribute there if necessary. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

First line

I think it’s incredibly insulting to Jimmy Saville’s victims and their families that in the snippet of the Wikipedia page it only speaks to his achievements. His Wikipedia page should start with the fact he was a predator… 110.174.83.158 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Jimmy_Savile#RfC_on_lead_sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As it doesn't "only speak of his achievements" and we we have a whole article on the subject, this is not the issue you seem to think it is. Please read more than one sentence of the article. Britmax (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So who's done the insulting snippeting? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove the ‘Sir’ before Jimmy Seville's name and the Knighthood and OBE letters after his name.

On this Wikipedia page I see that Jimmy Saville is still refereed to as ‘Sir’ and still has the Knighthood and OBE letters after his name.

I’m not asking for all reference of these awards to be removed from the page as they are all part of his history. I’m only looking for him not to be referred to as a ‘Sir’ and that his name should not be accompanied by the Knighthood and OBE letters. It devalues these honours and more importantly is very disrespectful to his hundreds of victims.

Thanks,

Rhys. 2A00:23C6:8200:CB01:7D7B:382E:37EC:C493 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussed in the archives - it's not going to happen. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"The last knight to be publicly degraded was Sir Francis Mitchell in 1621." See: Degradation (knighthood). As that never happened, Wikipedia just follows the rules of the British honours system. Try writing to your MP, and let us know what happens? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This very article states knighthood expires after death, so shouldn’t all dead people with knighthoods lose the “sir” on their page? Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed before (see archives) and the consensus as far as inclusion in Wikipedia articles is concerned was "no". Britmax (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

See here as well. But Wikipedia is not going to strip all dead people of their knighthoods because Savile was accused of being a kiddie fiddler.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

Remove Sir 2A00:23C6:B60C:F301:E46E:B64A:477E:A373 (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This has often been discussed before. There is no existing law to have knighthoods revoked for both deceased and living people. It's a similar situation to Bill Cosby, who still has a Presidential Medal of Freedom as there is no law that exists to revoke one. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. See above, and numerous archived discussions. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Per Bill Cosby, should an image of Jimmy Savile in his prime (1960s-1970s) be used for the infobox? The current image is fine, but most Wikipedia articles for deceased people use older images for the infobox. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The current photo is the best photo we have available. Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There really isn't a good range of free to use photos of Savile on Wikimedia Commons, and the 2006 image - showing him at the age of 79 - more or less chose itself. There would be WP:NFCC problems if a non-free image was used in the infobox. There isn't a single photo of Savile from the 60s or 70s on Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Completely understandable when it comes to copyright. But I'm sure free to use photos of Savile from the 60s or 70s exist, and when found, can be uploaded on Commons. After all, how did the 1960s photos of Cosby end up on Commons? --92.30.65.41 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Good luck in your search. :) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you but I'm not likely to find them, I was hoping more experienced editors would be able to do so. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they will also have some difficulty. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Really? Well that's a bit disappointing, but understandable given copyright circumstances. Though I hope a free image can perhaps be found and used one day. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, there is little point in looking for free images in a web search. You may end up finding images that someone says is free on Flickr etc, but a reverse image search shows that it has probably been stolen from a copyrighted source. There may be someone out there with a photo that they took of Savile in the 60s or 70s, and they could donate it to Wikimedia Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. I did find a few prime Savile images from the 1960s and 1970s that could work either for the infobox or pictures in the article. With the renewed interest in the Savile case through the Netflix documentary, I think having some prime Savile photos would be great for the article (as Savile was in his prime in the 1960s and 1970s, which was also when the majority of his crimes occurred), but the chances are is most photos of Savile from that time are protected by copyright. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove Sir and references to OBE in the opening paragraph.

This disgraced person has no entitlement to Sir or OBE now he is dead. Those honours died with him. Therefore the article should NOT still refer to him as such. At the very least Wikipedia has an obligation to the truth, let alone some respect for Savile's victims 78.86.130.121 (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

See previous discussions (starting with the one immediately above this one). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The article does not disrespect Savile's victims, it states multiple times in the lead and in the rest of the article that he was outed as a prolific sex abuser after his death. The only reason the "Sir" is still here is because there is no existing law to revoke a knighthood from both living and deceased individuals. This is also why Bill Cosby (another disgraced person who committed very similar crimes to Savile) still has a Presidential Medal of Freedom, as there is no existing law to revoke it. --92.30.65.41 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

For info see Degradation (knighthood) regrading living Knights Batchelor. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

NOTE: When replying to me, please tag me with {{Re|GOLDIEM J}}.
I seriously think we need to change the lead around a bit. When you google Savile, it shows this lead paragraph but only the first half of it; when you read just that, he comes across as this innocent and charitable chap, and really only when you read on that everything's exposed. People who never heard of Savile google him and see only the first half of the lead and think "man, what a nice guy!" GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an old argument. The policy here is WP:LEAD and Wikipedia has no control over how this appears in external search engine results.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Google is not an encyclopaedia, it is a search engine. It has done its job by pointing you here. Then the idea is that you read the whole article, or at least the whole lead. We have no obligation to distort the current chronological flow here by cramming everything into the first sentence. Please read previous talk page discussions on this matter. Britmax (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people thought he was a nice guy, an "innocent and charitable chap." They even gave him an OBE and a knighthood. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

If this is a repeated issue of editing confusion, is it worth adding a hidden comment to the lead? I tried to change the lead myself a while ago and was accused of "trying to force the change against consensus" - I didn't realise there'd even been any prior discussion. Popcornfud (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: My discussion is not about what people thought of Savile while he was still alive, it's about what people now would think of him reading off Google while everyone else knows the bigger picture. GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J, with all due respect, this is not "your discussion", it's a discussion for anyone who wants to contribute. My point is that his media success and charitable efforts led very many people (some of whom very influential), to think Savile was in some way "untouchable", and even "a modern day saint". There really is little point in trying to distil his whole life into a single sentence, when such a major aspect of his notability was his "dual personality", his hidden persona. Can we not trust readers to actually read four or five sentences before forming an opinion of Savile? This is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not Sound-bite-opaedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ianmacm:@Britmax:@Martinevans123: At the top of my entry, I kindly asked you if you could tag me in your reply; this is because I need the system to notify me so I know that you've replied.GOLDIEM J (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to do this. Since you opened this talk page thread yourself, you should be following it anyways.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

GOLDIEM J, there is no need to tag me as I am following this page in my Watchlist. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on leads does not mandate that good facts come before bad. The first sentence is heavily prescripted but that's not what anyone is talking about here. The lead just needs to be reordered. The pedophilia is more notable and should be mentioned before his charitable fundraising. Dbsanfte (talk) 08:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on leads does not mandate that bad facts come before good. It is significant that his abuse was hidden so well for so many years. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The place to explain that nuance isn't in a summary paragraph, Martinevans123, especially when that bit of the lead has pride of place in the world's biggest search engine. I suspect you are aware of this, so I'm not sure what your motives are. Dbsanfte (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, we're back to worrying about how a Wikipedia article appears in external search engine results, something that Wikipedia has no control over and is not part of WP:LEAD. And please assume good faith and don't imply bad motives by other editors.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Dbsanfte. So, are you accusing me of promoting sexual abuse in general or just of trying to protect a serial sexual abuser? I'm sure we'd all like to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit I still feel the sexual abuse should come in the first sentence (and in the shortdesc), too. Not because I'm concerned about search engines, but because it's overwhelmingly notable, and its omission is clearly a cause of constant surprise to visitors to the article. Popcornfud (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed this by changing the lead to mention the sexual abuse at the end of the first sentence, after mentioning his work as a DJ and presenter that was the original source of his fame. There is no doubt that the name "Savile" now brings to mind first and foremost the image of him as a sexual offender, not his professional work. -- The Anome (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted, because there was clearly no consensus for that change. However, there is equally clearly a strong case for continuing to discuss the point and I suggest we do that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC) PS: As a general point, it would probably be useful to UK editors to have clear evidence from non-UK reliable sources as to how Savile is now described in other countries, where his activities prior to his death were not as well-known as they were in the UK. I can understand that UK editors, who were around when he was a prominent light entertainment figure, still see his primary notability in that light, but after all we are a global encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely a discussion that needs to continue. (Please see here for my suggested revision of the first sentence.) My question would be; for what reason would the first sentence not mention his sexual offences? The Fred West article does not start with a sentence mentioning only his work as a builder. -- The Anome (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no valid comparison between the two. West had zero notability before his crimes came to light. Savile was extremely well-known in the UK before his death and the later revelations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Savile was indeed extremely well known as a media celebrity prior to the revelations of sexual abuse; however, since those emerged, he is now even better known as a monstrous sexual predator, to the point that this has eclipsed his orginal fame in the public mind. -- The Anome (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

That is a possibly valid assertion. Do you have some evidence to support it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Try this: "This transition corresponded with a dramatic transformation in the inferential structuring of Savile from 'national treasure', who had devoted decades to working with children, to 'prolific sexual predator', who spent decades abusing them." Or here "Steve Coogan has been cast as disgraced TV presenter and predatory sex offender Jimmy Savile" -- The Anome (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) You mean where it says (second sentence): "Sir Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) was a BBC celebrity, showbiz friend of the establishment and philanthropist.." ? You probably don't mean that. I can accept that, in the ten years since his death and the subsequent revelations, there has been a shift towards describing him in the terms you would like to suggest. But, it needs to be demonstrated. (And, incidentally, any encyclopedia article should avoid words like "now".) Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC) PS: The academic article is headed "The Sir Jimmy Savile Scandal.." - very much like our article. But that is not this article. Nobody would deny that Savile is a "disgraced TV presenter and predatory sex offender", or that the proposed drama "will chart Savile's rise in the show business industry and examine how he exploited his status to both abuse his victims and cover up his crimes." But, a blurb about a drama is a pretty tenuous basis on which to hang changes to the very first sentence of his biography here. I will await comments from other editors before returning to this discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Disgraced entertainer" / "disgraced presenter" seems to be a common formulation. And I cannot find any recent references to Savile which do not mention his activities as an abuser. --- The Anome (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes - I think the harder task would be find coverage of Savile in a reliable source from the last ten years that doesn't mention his abuse. Popcornfud (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"... a blurb about a drama is a pretty tenuous basis on which to hang changes to the very first sentence of his biography here." I quite agree. Whatever the opening sentences of lead section say, they should of course be fully supported in the main body by robust, non-recent, RS sources or, as I think is being suggested, a meta-analysis of RSs that demonstrates how most sources describe him. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

[Regarding Popcornfud's comment] Exactly this. He's well known for three things: being an entertainer, a philanthropist and an abuser. To mention two of these in the intro sentence, and not the third, strikes me as quite odd, and given the universal coverage of the third in all recent references in reliable sources, I think not mentioning it now becomes the thing that needs justification by its proponents, rather than the other way round. -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Here's an initial search from a single reliable source, the Guardian. Entering "Jimmy Savile" in the guardian.co.uk search box, and filtering by relevance, produces the following results, in order:

• Jimmy Savile: timeline of his sexual abuse and its uncovering (2014)
• Jimmy Savile cannot be stripped of knighthood, say officials (2012)
• How two BBC journalists risked their jobs to reveal the truth about Jimmy Savile (2021)
• Several stories about Boris Johnson's recent claims that Starmer was responsible for not prosecuting Savile (all 2022)
• Jimmy Savile: The People Who Knew review – devastating and damning (a review of a documentary about the sex abuse) (2021)
• Revealed: how Jimmy Savile abused up to 1,000 victims on BBC premises (2014)
• Jimmy Savile: detailed investigation reveals reign of abuse across NHS (2014)
• Jimmy Savile and the complex question of victim compensation (2015)
• Steve Coogan to play Jimmy Savile in ‘sensitive’ BBC drama (describes Savile as "notorious paedophile") (2021)
• Edwina Currie voices regrets over Jimmy Savile after inquiry criticism (2014)

I didn't go back further than that.

Every article mentions the abuse - and not in passing, but as a fundamental element of understanding the subject. (For example, the documentary is about Savile's sex abuse; etc.) Popcornfud (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

As Martinevans has said in the past, we do need to credit readers with an attention span longer than the proverbial goldfish. Anyone who reads the entire first paragraph, let alone the entire WP:LEAD, will get a full and accurate view of why Savile is a controversial and now reviled figure. Savile's reputation can be neatly divided into two parts: 1: before his death when he was (largely) feted as a national treasure and living saint for his charity work and 2: the "OMG he's a paedo" phase, which did not set in until after his death. If you read the full lead section this is made very clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I find myself inching towards something like: "Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile... was an English DJ, television and radio personality who was reported after his death to have been a serial sexual predator. Savile hosted...." etc. Thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why couch it in "reported to have been"? The weight of sources here is crushing. English DJ, television and radio personality and serial sexual predator. Why are we shying away from this? Popcornfud (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Because if we don't make it clear that the revelations came after his death, it would imply that he was known, or prosecuted, for that when he was alive - which he wasn't. I think that ".. reported after his death..." is undeniably true; "... revealed after his death.." may well be true, but I think is a more arguable form of words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally I don't feel that's an ambiguity worth worrying about, but others may disagree. The trouble with wording around "reported to" etc is that it sounds more like the encyclopaedia is being careful not to make accusations rather than to clarify chronology. Maybe "After his death, Savile was discovered to have..." would be a better approach. Popcornfud (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

In my view the one thing that you really need to know about Savile is that he was enormously successful during his lifetime but it all fell apart after his death. He is not like Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris, whose reputations were ruined by court cases while they were still alive. In the current Keir Starmer saga, it is not in dispute that various police forces and the CPS dropped investigations against Savile, something that Starmer himself now admits was a mistake.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(e/c) Perhaps because he never admitted it, there was never any trial and because he died before he could be brought to justice. But yes "reported to have been" might not do justice to the conclusion reached by the police. I still feel this change is being partly promoted by the need to fit in with the "world's biggest search engine." This is meant to be an encyclopaedia not just Google fodder. We ought to assume that readers can read whole paragraphs, or even two simple sentences, in one go? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a believer in putting the most important, defining information first, and using the rest of the lead to expand upon it. So we can say he was a sex offender, then explain that this was discovered after his death, in that order.

Per MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. I don't think a good single-sentence explanation as to who Savile was should omit the fact that he was a serial sex offender, based on the weight of sources. It's immaterial when this was information discovered.

I personally don't give a damn about Google; my priority is to make the encyclopaedia as good as possible. Popcornfud (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Sex offender" is problematic as he was never convicted of any offences. "Serial sexual predator" is more accurate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure - I'm fine with predator (though I wonder if that's slightly WP:IDIOMatic?) or abuser. Popcornfud (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Serial sexual predator" seems like the appropriate term, and MOS:FIRST definitely seems to be the guiding principle here. So the lede can contain: [1] an initial sentence stating his roles as entertainer, philanthopist and sexual predator, [2] text describing the history of those in chronological order, culminating in the revelations about the sexual abuse. All of which will then be expanded upon in the main article in more detail. -- The Anome (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How about this as a first sentence: "Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English DJ, television and radio personality who was discovered after his death to have been a serial sexual predator." The next sentence would then go on to say "Savile hosted popular BBC TV shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It." Does anyone have any comments, or suggested improvements? -- The Anome (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How about "...who, after his death, was found to have been..." ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not ideal wording, because the junior members of staff at the BBC and Stoke Mandeville Hospital were well aware of complaints about his behaviour during his lifetime. The only thing that was discovered after his death was how poor the senior management was at dealing with it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How about "who was recognised after his death to have been a serial sexual predator"? -- The Anome (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I still feel all of this is bending over backwards to solve a problem that isn't really there, and making the prose very wordy to boot. My vote is Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English media personality and serial sexual predator. (Or substitute "media personality" with "broadcaster" or whatever the preferred catch-all term is.) I really don't think this wording implies anything about when the abuse was discovered, and I don't think when the abuse was discovered is essential for the first sentence at all. Popcornfud (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go with Popcornfud's version above, perhaps expanding the words to "media personality, charity fundraiser and serial sexual predator". (I would not use the word "philanthropist" in this context; it's pretty clear the charity fundraising was part of his smokescreen.) -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "charity fundraiser" needs to be in the opening sentence at all. I suggest: "...English media personality who was found after his death to have been a serial sexual predator.... " Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We have Serial killer and Mass murder but no similar articles for sexual abuse or child sex abuse. I think Savile's exploits would be seen as comparable more with the latter rather with than the former? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not sure what point you're making there - can you explain more? Popcornfud (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: -- I'm not sure this is a useful distinction. "Serial" in this case means "one after another in succession", and is not a direct reference to serial killers. -- The Anome (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of the meaning of the word "serial" in this context, thanks. Yes, it is similar for murderers. But in the case of murder the term "mass murder" usually denotes a much larger number of victims than for a serial killer. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Since we seem to have reached a consensus that his abuse should be mentioned in the MOS:FIRST sentence; in the absence of any objections in the next 24 hours, I'm going to update the first sentence of the article to include the words "media personality, charity fundraiser and serial sexual predator". If you have a different form of words you want to use, please let me know; I'm not dedicated to any particular form of words providing his activities as an abuser are mentioned in the first sentence. If you have any serious objections to updating the article to mention abuse in the first sentence, please either open an RFP yourself, or I will do so. -- The Anome (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Or a RfC? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at this discussion thread so far, I am not seeing a clear consensus for putting this in the opening sentence, more of a deadlock. So I agree that a RfC would be the best option.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Anome: - Why are you insisting on "charity fundraiser" in the opening sentence? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not; I'm fine with changing it to "media personality and serial sexual predator". It looks like we are going to go down the RFC route, anyway. -- The Anome (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

This is another attempt to wedge it into the first sentence, before the things that made him famous and distorting the order in which they happened. If this is another attempt to grovel to Google's short attention span please leave it alone. Britmax (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The second sentence in the lede is redundant and unnecessary, and should be deleted entirely. His philanthropy is sufficiently discussed in par 3 of the lede section. Placing it in lede paragraph 1, gives undue weight and, IMO, it comes off as a bit of puffery, too. WP:UNDUE, WP:PUFFWritethisway (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on lead sentence

Should the lead sentence mention Jimmy Savile's sexual abuse? Popcornfud (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Per MOS:FIRST, The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is. Just about every reliable source that has written about Savile for the last decade has mentioned his sexual abuse (see discussion above for examples) - and, as this article says, he was perhaps one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders. No single-sentence summary of who Savile was should omit this, based on the weight of sources. For the lead sentence, it's immaterial when the information was discovered. Popcornfud (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• No. Happy that the current format allows even moderately intelligent non-specialist readers to understand, in three sentences, why Savile is notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• No: The article is already within WP:LEAD guidelines for readers with an attention span longer than one of these: 🐠.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Non-legally-binding disclaimer for non-fish-lovers: "Goldfish have a memory-span of at least three months and can distinguish between different shapes, colors, and sounds." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, per Martinevans 123 and IanMacM. -- Alarics (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, first sentence tells us why he was famous. Then after he died... So, it's all there. Britmax (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  For anyone outside the United Kingdom, he was famous for sexually abusing people. Even his death had very little news coverage in the USA, but the sexual abuse got quite a bit of coverage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  For anyone outside the United Kingdom, for 43 years he was famous for being a DJ, media personality and charity worker. After his death, his sexual abuse came to light. But you could always read the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and it is an absolutely disgrace to this project that the first sentence whitewashes him to appear to be some kind of entertainment hero instead of the monster that he actually was. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  It "whitewashes" Savile if you restrict your reading to one single sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Well, in the case of the short description, that often is the only thing that some users see, since it often appears as a tooltip for people who don't actually click the link Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah yes, "some users". Let's dumb down the encyclopaedia for the benefit of Goggle trawling and the Twittersphere. Why have measured prose when we can have "soundbite city"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Strong no. Per the RFC discussion from less than a year ago which found "The clear consensus is to oppose this proposal [Should the first sentence of the article and the short description describe Savile as a child molester?]. The accusations against Savile shouldn't be in the first paragraph or the short description, but the lead paragraph addressing them should remain.". There have been no new significant accusations or other changes since 2019, let alone since July, so there is no reason for consensus to have changed, and no evidence in the above discussion that it is likely to have done. Thryduulf (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• Let's take the Britannica test: "Jimmy Savile, in full Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile, (born October 31, 1926, Leeds, England—died October 29, 2011, Leeds), British entertainer who was a flamboyant radio and television personality known as much for his platinum-dyed hair, gaudy tracksuits, and enormous cigar as he was for his zany comedic style. After his death in 2011, he was the centre of a sexual abuse scandal." Good work here. It doesn't say that he was a paedo/criminal/sex offender, and establishes why he was notable before introducing the scandal that occurred after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• No, first sentence tells us why he was famous. Then after he died... So, it's all there, per Britmax and arguments of Martinevans123. Grotesque as it may appear now, he was a famous "entertainer" and oddball "national treasure" to most of the UK public until after his death. Had he not been, he probably wouldn't have managed to abuse so many young and vulnerable 'fans' but also wouldn't be 1/10 as well known as he is. His fame as a - seemingly saintly - raiser of funds for charities, is what magnified the sense of disgust and betrayal that many felt when they discovered the truth. The present text has the additional benefit of being chronological, which in itself creates context. This has been discussed again and again. Our job is to inform, not specifically to condemn. Pincrete (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't expect to change anyone's mind at this point, but I'd just like to clarify one thing. For me, none of this is about making moral judgements, or serving people with short attention spans. I simply think it's good practice to give a comprehensive definition of the subject in the first sentence - this is supported Wikipedia by policy, as I wrote above - and that the sexual abuse is notable enough to be defining. Popcornfud (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Our job is not to condemn at all, but to present the facts in a neutral encyclopaedic manner. Where it is WP:CUE, we can report that the subject has been condemned by others, and readers are free to condemn them themselves should they wish to do so, but we do not do condemning in Wikipedia's voice. This means that, for example, we report that he abused children, but we don't say that this means he was a bad person - even though very nearly all readers will think that. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Thryduulf, except that I don't think we should "report that he abused children". We should maybe report that "there have been many claims that he abused children" and there is a clear consensus that some at least of these claims are very likely justified, but not a single one of them has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The police and the NSPCC in their report seem to have simply assumed, without any proper investigation, that the allegations must be true, and almost the whole of the media have happily gone along with this. -- Alarics (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Still no. Respect the RFC discussion from less than a year ago - MOS:LEAD yes, MOS:BEGIN no. Follow the guidance to “spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.” Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• No - I understand the desire to establish Saville's identity as a monster very early on, but the first paragraph already does a good job at making that very clear. No use changing it for the sake of hypothetical readers who purportedly only read the first line of Wikipedia articles. PraiseVivec (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, what's that I see on the horizon? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Being a DJ and media personality may be what made him famous in the UK, but Savile is by far most notable outside the UK (and, I'd add, has significantly colored his perception in the UK since his death) for the sexual abuse scandal, and the way it's shaped the public's perception of his is only going to become stronger with time. I think mentioning the sexual abuse in the first sentence provides a more worldwide view of the topic and reflects that the reasons for his notability have shifted since he first gained it. JOEBRO64 19:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  So you would like to do away with context and NPOV on the basis of what evidence that people outside the UK unable to understand that an article consists or more than one sentence? Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Groan! No one is saying readers cannot read more than one sentence. It would be so great if we could stop making this strawman argument. The debate is about the placement and prioritising of information.

Imagine if I said that we should move the information about Savile's occupation as a DJ to the third sentence instead. You would probably complain. If I then said "Trust readers to read more than one sentence", would you find that satisfying answer? No, because you probably believe his occupation is a critical and foundational part of what made Savile notable, and it has nothing to do with attention spans. The disagreement here is actually about the prioritising of information - which is editorially important. Popcornfud (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would certainly complain, as it would impair the very clear chronology. As would your proposal. And I'm not claiming that anyone is saying readers cannot read more than one sentence. I'm suggesting that readers should be encouraged to read more than one sentence. If there are readers who can manage only one sentence, Wikipedia may not be the place for them. Just scanning the headlines of The Sun each day might be enough for them. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"I would certainly complain, as it would impair the very clear chronology." Uh oh, are you saying that readers don't have the patience to read more than one sentence to understand what order events took place in? Popcornfud (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying an encyclopaedia should respect the chronology of a person's life. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

And if our lead sentence said something like "Jimmy Savile was a broadcaster, DJ and serial sex abuser", what chronological confusion does this introduce? Chronologically, he was all of these things more or less simultaneously. You seem concerned that readers will not realise he became internationally famous as one of the UK's worst sexual abusers after he was famous as a broadcaster - which we can cover in the next two sentences. Are you worried readers will not read those next two sentences? Popcornfud (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Jimmy Savile was a broadcaster, DJ and serial sex abuser" gives the false impression that the sexual abuse was widely known at the same time as his other activities and ignores the very important context that this only came to public attention after his death and ignores that he was a major media personality and his charity work. Jimmy Saville's story is a lot more than e.g. Harvey Weinstein's as he was notable for more things, had a significant reputation as a good person during his lifetime followed by a complete reversal after death. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that they can't read more than one sentence, I asked for evidence that they don't understand that the article consists of more then one sentence - which is the strong implication of your proposal. I also noted that you proposal would do away with context and NPOV and you haven't responded to that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You were asking TheJoebro6 that, not me. Popcornfud (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked for evidence that they don't understand that the article consists of more then one sentence - which is the strong implication of your proposal It really isn't, and this seems to be the subject of mass confusion in this debate. Again, imagine if I proposed we moved "DJ" later in the lead. You would (I assume) object to this - ask yourself why. Is it because you believe readers can't read more than once sentence? Would that be the implication of your objection? No, it's because you think it's important. Popcornfud (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Moving DJ elsewhere than early in the first sentence would be extremely confusing given that it's key context for everything else. His abusive sexual activities do not give context for anything other than those activities, but rather depend upon the context of everything that has gone before it. All this context is required for both accurate understanding of the subject and also compliance with NPOV - we don't move something out of its contextual position just because we think it is a particularly good or bad thing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Then there you have it - you have your reasons for feeling the DJ information is important for the lead sentence, based on arguments of context, POV etc - just as others feel that the sexual offender information is important. All I want to do here is do away this distraction of "people not being able to read three sentence", etc, which is no one's argument. Popcornfud (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not my argument or your argument, but it not being in the lead sentence meaning that it's being whitewashed, trivialised and/or similar is an argument that others have made. The strong implication being that people will only read the first sentence and so come away with an incorrect understanding of who Saville was. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought the reason for my objection to moving "DJ" to later in the lead, was 100% clear and simple? Do you want me to try and clarify again? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I was responding to Thryduulf. Popcornfud (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were making a general point. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"No one is saying readers cannot read more than one sentence." Great. Leave it as it is, then. Britmax (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• No per the arguments made in the last discussion.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes/No - Not in the first sentence, but in the first paragraph. This is a bad RfC where the title says one thing and the statement says another. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per MOS:FIRST. He has moved from fame to infamy, and will be remembered as one of the worst mass-sexual-abusers for far longer than he will be known as a DJ. -- The Anome (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to know how you know that. Do you have next Friday's Euro Millions numbers? Anyway, by saying that he moved from fame to infamy surely you are backing up the existing order? Britmax (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes: Wikipedia takes a long-term historical view on things and it is most likely that in 100 or 200 years, Savile's life will only be studied and remembered for the almost unprecedent scale of his child abuse, not for a children's television show in and of itself. The first sentence is incomplete without mention of this. No mention of Savile in the modern day comes without reference to his crimes. MOS:FIRST requires that this be done in the first sentence, not just the first paragraph. But even otherwise, I think the connection between the sex crimes and his public profile is not made clear in the first paragraph (he did the entertainment and charity work in order to abuse children—that wasn't a separate part of his life).

I also think we should mention his charity work in the first sentence, because this is also part of his public profile and child abuse strategy. For concision, it would be something like "Jimmy Savile was an English television and radio personality for the BBC who used philanthropy and his entertainment work to gain access to children whom he sexually abused". — Bilorv (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"...who used philanthropy and his entertainment work to gain access to children whom he sexually abused" Sorry, please tell me how you know this. Britmax (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is claiming that Savile will be remembered "for a children's television show in and of itself"? And where's your source that "he did the entertainment and charity work in order to abuse children"? That may be true, but the article does not currently say this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed no source I've read claims that "he did the entertainment and charity work in order to abuse children". The possibilities are that his motivation for the work was (a) to abuse children, with the other benefits being a secondary benefit; (b) to abuse children, with nothing else being of any relevance to him; (c) to raise money for charity, etc, being primary with access to children to abuse being secondary; (c) something else was the primary goal or (d) some mixture of these (sometimes charity was primary, sometimes abusing children was primary, sometimes something else was primary). Personally I suspect the answer is (d) given the variety of things he did - e.g. running marathons seems very unlikely to result in getting access to children to abuse relative to e.g. volunteering at a children's hospital, especially considering the time spent training for a marathon could have been spent abusing children or working to get access to children to abuse or in the public eye improving/keeping up his public image. However, given that, as far as I'm aware, nobody asked him that question while he was alive we can almost certainly never know the answer. We must always be careful to stick to what is reported in reliable sources and avoid letting our personal opinions of him/his actions get in the way of a neutral, factual article, and absent evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that he believed in the goals of some or all of the charities he raised money for as well as using some or all of them for his own ends. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree in this respect - if there's no plurality of sources definitively stating that he did XYZ specifically and exclusively to abuse people, we shouldn't state that. (I don't see this as having any relevance to the issue of the lead sentence, though.) Popcornfud (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's wholly relevant to Bilorv's suggestion for a completely new opening sentence! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Clearly. I mean I don't think it's an issue that ought to be covered in the lead sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• No I'd rather move the current sentences regarding the sexual abuses immediately after the first sentence. P1221 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• No The lede first sentence is fine. The glaring problem with the lede paragraph is the second sentence. It should be struck completely from the lede. WP:UNDUE. This would solve the issue of wanting to ensure that allegation of sexual abuse are properly included in the lede, but not stuffed into the first sentence. MOS:LEADECLUTTERWritethisway (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - I am coming into this RfC completely ignorant of who this Jimmy Savile guy is, I'd never heard of him before today. So I did a google search for "Jimmy Savile is" and got nothing but results like "a disgraced DJ" and "accused of underage sexual assaults" and so forth. There was ONE link that said he was an actor on a particular show I'd never heard of. I'm looking at news articles, and yes... those news articles are of course about his pedophillia because that's the big news... but more importantly, I look how the news articles frame him. Most articles about a famous person in a scandal begin with identifying why the person is famous outside the scandal ("{famous movie title} lead actor {name} was accused of...")... none of these articles do the same. They all discuss him in terms of being a famous sex offender, not in terms of being an otherwise famous person who is also a sex offender-- the context in the vast, VAST majority of articles I'm skimming is that he is famous FOR being a sex offender, and mentions nothing else. So as per my 20 minutes of research goes, I have to say that the thing he is most known for, as described by the majority of sources I could find, is a prolific sexual offender. I know, I know... WP:RECENTISM applies... but I really don't think this is recentism. I think this is his legacy, and how he's going to continue to be remembered... not for all the TV shows and charity work, but for serially sexually assaulting kids. As such, to reflect the sources, I have to !vote "yes". Fieari (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment This is just rehashing the argument "OMG, if Google says it, then we must say it too." The policy on Wikipedia is WP:LEAD. If you don't know how famous Jimmy Savile was in Britain for many years, the context is lacking.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, so it's the reader's fault for not knowing stuff. Popcornfud (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) British (at least) news articles all assume the reader knows who Saville is without background introduction, because nearly all their audience do. Wikipedia articles should never assume any prior knowledge on a main article (sub articles can assume you know context from the main article but should provide a link to you can read that if you don't), so we must provide all that context in the correct contextual order. You can't be a "disgraced DJ" without having first been famous as a DJ and then (be found to have) done something bad. You can't be a disgraced anything unless you had a reputation that was at least slightly positive before whatever bad thing you did came to light. Finally, this is an encyclopaedic biography of Saville's whole life, not a news article about one specific aspect of it so how news reports are introduced is not directly relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is all exactly why we should put it all in the first sentence, though. I am bewildered by all these arguments that are so obsessed with "context/chronology" at the expense of the first defining sentence. Many many many article subjects are notable for many things - that doesn't mean we shouldn't put the main ones in the first sentence. Think of all the famous musicians who then became famous actors, etc - does that mean we should only say they are a musician in the first sentence? etc. Popcornfud (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you put everything in the first sentence then the first sentence will be about a paragraph long. I'm bewildered by all these arguments about abandoning context, chronology and NPOV just so they can write the bad stuff sooner. The difference between Saville and an actor/musician is that Saville was, during his life, a highly respected DJ, presenter and charity fundraiser whose reputation fell off a cliff after his death after the extensive allegations of sex offending (none of which have ever been tested in a court, not all of which have even been investigated) became widely publicised; the actors/musicians do both things while they are alive - frequently without a clear division between them so they are simultaneously an actor and a musician. Nobody in this entire discussion has yet presented a compelling reason why it is necessary, or even beneficial, to ignore or distort the context and chronology. Why do you think it isn't important? Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you put everything in the first sentence then the first sentence will be about a paragraph long

  The first sentence I proposed above was:

  Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG (/ˈsævɪl/; 31 October 1926 – 29 October 2011) was an English media personality and serial sexual predator.

  So no. And I do not believe this proposal sentence "ignores or distorts the context and chronology". It's a simple statement of what Savile was, based on the abundance of notable sources. It isn't misleading, it doesn't paint any kind of untruth. That's it. Popcornfud (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Except that is misleading for the reasons repeatedly and extensively explained. I can't think of any way to respond that isn't just repeating why previous suggestions of this and similar were rejected. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you give us a date for when Savile started his sexual abuse? The police might also have been interested to hear that for Operation Yewtree. We don't have a reliable timeline, as there was never any trial? Martinevans123 (talk)

• See WP:GOOGLE. Google hits ≠ the truth. A British person who lived through the 1960s, 70s and 80s knows how famous Savile was at the time. This has to be explained for other readers. The sequence has to be right as well. Savile was never arrested, charged or convicted for any sexual offence during his lifetime, and although there were mutterings about his private life during his lifetime, the huge scandal occurred after his death.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this is a much wider problem of Google re-writing history. Does the volume of hits /most popular hit in Goggle show why anyone was notable? No, it shows how they have become notable on the internet since it was invented. By all means go back and search through the UK newspaper archive for when Savile was alive. You won't find many mentions of child sex abuse. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  By all means go back and search through the UK newspaper archive for when Savile was alive. You won't find many mentions of child sex abuse

  So what? Do those sources somehow trump the later sources, when everything we knew about the article subject changed? Popcornfud (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm suggesting that many people now assume that Savile's sexual abuse was well known during his lifetime and was part of the reason he became famous. It was not. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC) p.s. the first paragraph at Joseph Stalin makes him sound quite respectable? Do we need to add into the first sentence that he ordered the execution of at least 700,000 people? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A British person who lived through the 1960s, 70s and 80s knows how famous Savile was at the time. This has to be explained for other readers. That's irrelevant to whether we should say he was a sexual predator in the first sentence. That doesn't somehow make it harder to explain to readers that he was famous. Popcornfud (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have requested a close at WP:CR.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is one of the worst non-admin closures I've ever seen. Outside of the UK Jimmy Savile is known as a Serial sexual predator first. His infamy far outstrips his status as a famous DJ. There was little more than straw man argument put forward against reordering the lede. Claims that people thought readers were stupid, when no one was saying that. And somehow this closer decided that the arguments in favor of pretending that the most notable thing about Jimmy Savile is that he was a DJ and gave money to charity. This article lede is an absolute joke as it stands. However, I don't have the time or energy to fight with an article owner like Martin Evans so I'll leave you all to it. Reverting changes in order within an hour is sort of the definition of being an article owner. And I don't have time for that nonsense. Good luck to those who try to fix anything in this article to focus on what Jimmy Savile is actually infamous for. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I own nothing at Wikipedia. But especially not this. I thought your edit was unjustified, whether I reverted "within an hour", or not. What's the agreed time limit for reverting? By all means request that the close be undone. But please don't accuse me of WP:OWN. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hallward's Ghost/Kevin: you're talking as if this topic hasn't already been discussed at extremely voluminous length. Your side of the argument was fully expressed in the RfC above, and was clearly outvoted by the consensus, represented by a large number of us and not just Martin Evans, your aspersions against whom are unworthy. You should respect the process, wind your neck in, and stop being such a bad loser. -- Alarics (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

82.132.246.93 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC) A knighthood is only for the living so sir should be removed

Please read the previous discussion on this matter. Britmax (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022

Reformat first paragraph so that his now widely known reputation as a prolific sex offender is included within his initial description. Otherwise the only aspect which shows when you Google him before opening the full page is that he was a charitable public figure, which doesn't seem accurate or fair to his countless victims. As well as being a well-known DJ, he is more importantly remembered by the offences noted throughout his lifetime and later fully uncovered.

Potentially add section of offences as done on Wikipedia pages with other alleged criminals. 2A00:23C4:1696:9A01:4915:BC88:5B0F:A8A6 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the previous discussions of this matter, and rephrase your request to make it seem like less of a demand. The only aspect that shows when you Google him is of no consequence to us whatsoever. Thank you.Britmax (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sir?

Please remove sir and obe. These were removed. He is no longer a sir. He no longer has an OBE. Put his horrors first. All his achievements were ways to conquer his horrors. He orchestrated it all. Give him no credit but it should be written as a monster. 2A00:23C8:2706:F601:ECAF:257D:43D6:1E36 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

These things have been debated here before, and a Netflix documentary changes nothing. Britmax (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

£40 million in intro

I've removed the mention of £40 million in the intro; the exact sum is not important, the widespread acclaim, which was the result of his efforts, is, and the £40m is already given later in the article. My edit was reverted by Ianmacm; I've re-reverted and brought this discussion here. — The Anome (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I support removing the amount, though I'd prefer if we left the status quo ante up during discussion. I think you tossed another R into the usual BRD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. In the spirit of BRD, then, I propose that we remove the mention; it's redundant, and takes the much criticised mention-the-positives-first aspect of the lede to absurd levels. — The Anome (talk) 15:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't find £40m "absurd". It's just a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What's the lower limit on absurdity? £20m? £1m? a few hundred quid? ~~ Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've restored it while discussion ensues here. Anything that's in the lead section has to be "given later in the article", so that's hardly an argument for removal. £40 million is a very large amount. Yes, the widespread acclaim is the essential element, but I'm not sure why the exact figure detracts from it. No strong view. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

£40 million is *a lot* of money. It virtually paid for Stoke Mandeville Hospital and made Savile the most famous celebrity fundraiser in Britain. This in turn gave Savile access to senior politicians and members of the Royal Family. We are not talking about someone who did a few coffee mornings.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I favour removing the whole clause "He raised an estimated £40 million for charities", while keeping the rest of the sentence: "During his lifetime, Savile was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a [charity?] fund-raiser." Mentioning the amount does give an unhealthily and unnecessarily positive impression, and is over-detailed so long as we keep the words "as a fund-raiser". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC) PS: Looking at this again, is it fair and neutral to say that he "was widely praised for his personal qualities..". He was viewed as highly eccentric, and I'm not sure that his "personal qualities" were the predominant view of him during his lifetime. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the "personal qualities" thing could go. Even during his lifetime, some people disliked Savile and saw him as a creep. But the huge sum of money he raised for charity is notable, because it goes a long way towards explaining why anyone who complained about his behaviour was usually brushed aside.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to worry about what impression £40 million gives the reader, as long as it is a hard fact and proportionally and neutrally presented. It's an important part of Savile's story and explains much of his ability to evade justice. So the article should tell the reader exactly how much, rather than avoiding it or being vague. Perhaps a re-phrasing would be better?

"During his lifetime he raised an estimated £40 million for charities and was widely praised for his personal qualities and fund-raising.[1][2] But after his death, hundreds .. .."

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No objections to that re-phrasing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I continue to support removal of the estimated figure – and I support Ghmyrtle's call to remove or rephrase the "personal qualities" bit – but I do view EO's re-phrasing as an improvement over the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that EO's wording is broadly an improvement, though I question whether we should start a sentence with "But..". Either remove the word, or have it running on from the previous sentence. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What issue do you have with "But"? Is it a matter of style, tone or grammar? Or do you feel it alters the neutrality of things? I thought it gives the reader fair warning that what follows will appear to be incongruous, but is an accurate reflection of events. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Savile raised millions of pounds for Stoke Mandeville Hospital. As a result, he was allowed by the senior management to wander around the hospital and do whatever he liked; complaints from patients and nurses were binned until after his death. The two things go together.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd keep the £40 million in, myself. Some people raise money for charity, and some raise a lot, but few raise that much. This must have been part of the source of his power over people: few would want to be seen to be losing charities that kind of money. Britmax (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

Jimmy Saville was a predatory sex offender and possibly one of Britain's most prolific.

This statement should be the first statement seen, not all of the rest. 2A00:23C6:C38F:9401:51A9:58D:6B9F:222D (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read previous discussions on this matter. Britmax (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Bald reversion of simple order change in the lede

I changed no content in the lede. I simply reordered the exact same information to lead with what he is now notorious for having done. And it gets a bald revert with a non sequitur edit summary? That's not acceptable. The fact that he is perhaps Britain's worst ever sexual predator should be what the article leads with. Not the fact that he gave lots of money to charity. All of the information is still there it's just reordered. The reversion was inappropriate and I will be restoring my change in order. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 21:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You've read all the preceding discussion here about ordering in the lead? But I'll ask again, what has changed? What are your sources that now the "fact that he is perhaps Britain's worst ever sexual predator should be what the article leads with"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Conway jon now also seems to think the chronology in the lead section is best muddled. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Listen, we get it. You think you own this article. And anyone who would like change it to reflect a more accurate representation of how Jimmy Savile is viewed by people outside of Britain (and many inside it as well) gets reverted immediately by you. I'm not going to fight you about it. If you want to push what he's most famous for down in the lede below the fact that he did charity work and was a famous DJ, go for it. I'll let other people try to pierce your ownership of this article. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 06:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a wholly unfair and bad faith accusation. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the change, and merged two paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Kevin, but if you think it's just one editor here you haven't read much, if any, of the long debate that has taken place on this matter. Please go and do so. Britmax (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I read the "debate." The argument for not including the thing he is most notable and infamous for at the top of the article lede is ludicrous. The close of the last RFC was just amazingly awful. Pretending this man is most notable for being a DJ and a philanthropist is just wild. But the ones who want to do that clearly line up shoulder to shoulder whenever anyone dares poke their head up to point out how bad the opening of this lede is. You win again. Goodbye. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 12:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned, just one sentence after you seem to think it should be. We don't have to mention the most important thing first, this is not a tabloid newspaper. Britmax (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Ouch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The "opening of this lede" is not "bad", it's 100% factual. Goodbye. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

No one claimed the lede isn't "factual." The issue is with the opening paragraph failing to mention the thing for which he's most notable, which is most certainly NOT because he was a DJ and philanthropist. But the owners of this page have determined that putting what he's most notable for first in the lede isn't acceptable, so it's a moot point. And this article lede will continue to seem kind of ridiculous to everyone else who happens by. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no ownership, only consensus. I'm not sure "good" vs "bad" is the best dimension on which to judge the quality of the lede. I thought it was "goodbye" last time. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It is in the opening paragraph, just not in the opening sentence. If every one else who happened by thought it was ridiculous it would change. But they don't. Britmax (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

He is known as a house name DJ who was later exposed as a sexual predictor. The notability level of the second is dependent on the first. I see nothing wrong with the established order of priority. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal of new lead image

If one is available, I don't see why this article can't have a better lead image of Saville, considering it's a low-res photo of him at 79/80 taken outside. There are numerous articles of deceased celebrities/figures having professional lead images of them in their younger years, and I'm surprised that Saville's is an exception to this. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Looing at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Jimmy_Savile, there's not must to chose from. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

See also Talk:Jimmy_Savile#Infobox_picture above. I don't actually dislike the current infobox image, but WP:NFCC restricts choice. Savile must have loved that tartan tracksuit, because there are numerous photos and videos of him wearing it. Here is another photo showing it while he is meeting Prince Charles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Thank you, your Royal Highness. But I never wear anything underneath." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2022

Jimmy Saville is no longer a "Sir" as that is a living title and he is dead.

There is also no mention of his other exploits e.g.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/26/savile-bodies-sex-acts-corpses-glass-eyes-mortuary 81.103.61.215 (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Read the faq Dronebogus (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The allegations relating to the mortuary are covered in Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. These allegations are more anecdotal than some of the others, but an official report concluded that he did have unsupervised access.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the knighthood thing has been discussed extensively, above. Britmax (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the knighthood wasn't for stealing a glass eye from a corpse and making it into a trophy necklace that he wore on final Top of the Pops. Well not just for that, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC) (..."for services to the jewellery industry", perhaps?)

We may never know the truth of the mortuary allegations, which are largely based on hearsay evidence if you look closely, but bearing in mind what happened with David Fuller, the fact that Savile was allowed unsupervised access to the mortuary at Leeds General Infirmary is in itself remarkable. This was because Savile was friends with the chief mortician. He really did get about.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

LGBT

He had sex with males, according to content under the “Sexual abuse by Saville” header, why is he not included in Category:LGBT people from England?—2607:FEA8:BDA0:1A8F:80C3:8A45:452C:68C2 (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The article says "Analysis of the report showed 82% of those who came forward to report abuse were female and 80% were children or young people at the time of the incidents." This doesn't necessarily translate to "Savile was LGBT", leading to a WP:CATVER problem. According to the allegations made after his death, Savile would sexually abuse anything with a pulse if he got the chance, but the sourcing does not specifically say that he was gay or bi, which also leads to WP:OR problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede shows up on Google in a way that perhaps misses a key point

The google snippet is

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG was an English DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. He raised an estimated £40 million for charities; during his lifetime, Savile was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. which perhaps misses a fairly key point or two? 120.18.107.164 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of discussion about the lede of the article, as should be obvious if you look at the history of this talk page. I don't think however that Wikipedia should allow what Google does with our article content dictate how it is written. Arguments about article content should revolve around the merits of the article itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Wikipedia has no control over how its articles appear in external search engine results, and the policy is WP:LEAD. Savile was a very notable British celebrity whose reputation was ruined by allegations made after his death. The lead makes this clear, what Google says is not an issue when writing the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Who cares what shows up in google - I don't think that the first things written about him anywhere should all be positive.

Just change it to this:

Sir James Wilson Vincent Savile OBE KCSG was a paedophile, English DJ, television and radio personality who hosted BBC shows including Top of the Pops and Jim'll Fix It. He raised an estimated £40 million for charities; during his lifetime, Savile was widely praised for his personal qualities and as a fund-raiser. DoobyDoop (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)